WATCH THIS VIDEO.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
TWO MORE ILLEGAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS
On May first and May second, His Royal Imperial Majesty King Obama issued two more unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders.
The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution. Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen. In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”
The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012. This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports: “Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.
So far, no one in Congress has the cojones to take a stand against this blatant illegal abuse of power.
Do we the American people really want to continue to live under this blatant tyranny?
The second question is “Will the Supreme Court of the United States of America bow to Obama and give up its co-equal status to the dictator as the US Congress has already done?”
FAST AND FURIOUS UPDATE
(CBS News) Republicans on the House Oversight Committee were to take the first formal step Thursday toward contempt proceedings against Attorney General Eric Holder over the Fast and Furious "gunwalking" operation, CBS News has learned.
The case for a citation declaring Holder in contempt will be laid out in a briefing paper and 48-page draft citation distributed to Democrats and Republicans on the committee. CBS News has obtained copies of both documents. In them, Republican members use strong language to accuse Holder of obstructing the committee's investigation, which is now in its second year.
The documents allege that the Justice Department has issued, "false denials, given answers intended to misdirect investigators, sought to intimidate witnesses, unlawfully withheld subpoenaed documents, and waited to be confronted with indisputable evidence before acknowledging uncomfortable facts."
Gov't answers CBS News "Fast and Furious" records requests with blank pages
Republicans prep contempt citation against Holder over Fast and Furious
ATF let "gunwalking" suspect go after arrest
"The Justice Department's demonstrable contempt for the congressional investigation has inflicted harm on the people of two nations seeking the truth - and very pointedly on the family of fallen Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ATF whistleblowers who now face retaliation in the wake of their own heroic efforts to expose wrongdoing," says the brief to be distributed Thursday.
For its part, the Justice Department says it has complied with the congressional investigations, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
"We've done twice-a-month (document) productions since last year, and the Attorney General has testified about this matter no less than seven times," a Justice official tells CBS News.
There have been at least three House contempt actions against the Executive Branch in the past 30 years.
In 1983, Congress found EPA administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford in contempt for failing to produce subpoenaed documents.
In 1998, the GOP-controlled House Oversight committee found Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena on campaign finance law violations.
In 2008, the Democrat-controlled House found former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff John Bolton in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated.
In 2008, the Democratic-led Oversight Committee found two White House officials in contempt in the probe of Bush Administration firings of U.S. Attorneys. Congress went to federal court to seek enforcement of that contempt action, but a compromise was reached with the Executive Branch before any court decision was final.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
BRAINWASHED
A friend of mine, who is reasonably well informed on all
things except American Politics, recently sent me an email with this link, as
if to imply that all that is wrong with the world today is the fault of the Republicans
Party. The poor man has been so brainwashed by the liberal media and the liberal academia that reasoning with him is
like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.
The main jest of the Washington Post article has to do with
Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, recently asserting that there are “78 to
81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. He may very well be correct. Anyone who hasn’t been in a coma for the past
couple decades knows there are SOME
Communist in the Democratic Party. The
only question is “how many”.
I’m not sure where Mr. West got his information, but here is
a possible explanation.
As you can see, there are more than 80 members of Congress
and three members of the Senate who are members of The Congressional
Progressive Caucus.
I would suspect that most of them are Socialists and/or
Communist. The same goes for his Royal
Imperial Majesty, King Barack Hussein Obama.
If your Congressman is a member of the CPC,
I strongly recommend you send him packing in November.
Have a nice day David.
POTUS VS. SCOTUS
It appears that the two ultra-liberal judges Obama appointed to the Supreme Court no longer feel compelled to follow His Imperial Majesty’s commands.
POTUS’ SCOTUS Reckoning
By David Malcolm 5/2/2012
When a justice you nominated to the Supreme Court, who
shares your view of proper constitutional interpretation, tells your Solicitor
General that neither she nor the rest of the Court is buying your argument, you
know you’re in trouble. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s rebuke to Solicitor General
Donald Verrilli during last week’s oral argument on Arizona’s
immigration law was the most recent example of the Obama Administration’s
continued difficulties before the nation’s highest court.
Recently, the Solicitor General’s office, which represents the federal government before the Supreme Court, has unsuccessfully represented the Obama Administration in a host of controversial cases: the campaign finance restrictions in the Citizens United case (the administration lost 5-4), the ministerial exception Hosanna Tabor (the administration lost 9-0), the challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (it looks likely the administration will lose at least in part), and, most recently, the administration’s challenge to S.B. 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law (ditto).
In view of these results, the Court apparently harbors no “empathy” for the Administration’s view of the Constitution. Further, while consistency is usually a commendable trait, consistency of this sort is not. It bespeaks an administration guided by policies in fundamental conflict with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the statutes and case law promulgated under it. Hosanna Tabor is probably the clearest example of this.
The question before the Court in Hosanna Tabor was whether the “ministerial exception” shielded a Lutheran church/school in Missouri from a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by Obama’s Equal Opportunity Commission and a former teacher at the school. The ministerial exception provides that because religious employers are free to determine whom they choose to hire and fire in furtherance of their religious mission, they are (generally) exempt from federal anti-discrimination laws that otherwise apply to employment decisions.
In its briefings and at oral argument, the administration took the radical position that a religious institution’s freedom to hire and fire is grounded only in the First Amendment’s freedom of association clause, not the free exercise of religion clause. The Justices didn’t buy it. Addressing the government’s lawyer, Justice Elena Kagan (the other Obama-nominated Justice) said, “I too find it amazing, that you think…that neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause has anything to say about a church’s relationship with its own employees.” Not surprisingly, the Court ruled 9-0 against the administration and held the suit was barred by the ministerial exception.
Every administration loses cases. However, the frequency with which the Court has rejected this administration’s arguments on such significant cases, and the unanimity in which it has done so, is striking. When the Bush administration lost a few War on Terror cases on sharply divided 5-4 decisions (e.g., Rasul, Boumediene), the legal media proclaimed that the Court was reining in an unbounded executive and maintaining the rule of law. That was nonsense; those decisions flatly ignored longstanding, settled precedent and have unsurprisingly proved unworkable in lower courts.
Now, however, in response to the Obama administration’s repeated defeats by solid margins, the media ignores the administration’s role in its own losses, and instead attributes the results to the lawyers, the election dynamics, or the Court itself. In other words, everything and everyone but Obama is to blame for the administration’s setbacks at the Court.
The media spin cannot hide what is apparent to those who follow the Court and the administration’s failures there: the Constitution does not abide President Obama’s progressive vision of this country and its Constitution. As the constitutional scholar-in-chief now seeks another term, discerning voters should ask themselves whether a record of such marked failure warrants his reelection, and the possibility of his nominating the next Justice. Following the Court’s lead, a unanimous no is appropriate.
In his latest display of his full USA
federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former
co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to
either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.
The Obama Administration has been quietly sending messages to
the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on
ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if
SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its
campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly.
The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to
doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit
to him.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
A Cynical Process
A Cynical Process
By Thomas Sowell 5/1/2012
Many people, who do not look beyond the vision or the rhetoric to the reality, still think of labor unions as protectors of working people from their employers. And union bosses still employ that kind of rhetoric. However, someone once said, "When I speak I put on a mask, but when I act I must take it off."
That mask has been coming off, more and more, especially during the Obama administration, and what is revealed underneath is very ugly, very cynical and very dangerous.
First there was the grossly misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" that the administration tried to push through Congress. What it would have destroyed was precisely what it claimed to be promoting -- a free choice by workers as to whether or not they wanted to join a labor union.
Ever since the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, workers have been able to express their free choice of joining or not joining a labor union in a federally conducted election with a secret ballot.
As workers in the private sector have, over the years, increasingly voted to reject joining labor unions, union bosses have sought to replace secret ballots with signed documents -- signed in the presence of union organizers and under the pressures, harassments or implicit threats of those organizers.
Now that the Obama administration has appointed a majority of the members of the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB leadership has imposed new requirements that employers supply union organizers with the names and home addresses of every employee. Nor do employees have a right to decline to have this personal information given out to union organizers, under NLRB rules.
In other words, union organizers will now have the legal right to pressure, harass or intimidate workers on the job or in their own homes, in order to get them to sign up with the union. Among the consequences of not signing up is union reprisal on the job if the union wins the election. But physical threats and actions are by no means off the table, as many people who get in the way of unions have learned.
Workers who do not want to join a union will now have to decide how much harassment of themselves and their family they are going to have to put up with, if they don't knuckle under.
In the past, unions had to make the case to workers that it was in their best interests to join. Meanwhile, employers would make their case to the same workers that it was in their best interest to vote against joining.
When the unions began losing those elections, they decided to change the rules. And after Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, with large financial support from labor unions, the rules were in fact changed by Obama's NLRB.
As if to make the outcome of workers' "choices" more of a foregone conclusion, the time period between the announcement of an election and the election itself has been shortened by the NLRB.
In other words, the union can spend months, or whatever amount of time it takes, for them to prepare and implement an organizing campaign beforehand -- and then suddenly announce a deadline date for the decision on having or not having a union. The union organizers can launch their full-court press before the employers have time to organize a comparable counter-argument or the workers have time to weigh their decision, while being pressured.
The last thing this process is concerned about is a free choice for workers. The first thing it is concerned about is getting a captive group of union members, whose compulsory dues provide a large sum of money to be spent at the discretion of union bosses, to provide those bosses with both personal perks and political power to wield, on the basis of their ability to pick and choose where to make campaign contributions from the union members' dues.
Union elections do not recur like other elections. They are like some Third World elections: "One man, one vote -- one time." And getting a recognized union unrecognized is an uphill struggle.
But, so long as many people refuse to see the union for what it is, or the Obama administration for what it is, this cynical and corrupt process can continue.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?
The Muslim
Brotherhood in America.
This is part 1 of a
10 part series on YouTube for those who really care about what is happening to
our country.
Unfortunately, there doesn’t
appear to be many that really care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)